DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 23, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received December 23, 2025:
Claims 1-21 are pending.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, a new 112(a) rejection has been made below.
The core of the previous rejection is maintained with slight changes made in light of the amendment in view of Sugita et al. (US 2016/0020467).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 2-4, “...the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector, and…” should recite “...the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer, and…” for purposes of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “…the organic flame retardant excludes a polymer…” . There does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “…the organic flame retardant excludes a polymer…”. The instant specification provides that the organic flame retardant comprises a phosphorus-based flame retardant, a halogen-based flame retardant, a nitrogen-based flame retardant, or a combination thereof (pg. 6, lines 14-17), but does not mention excluding a polymer. Neither the specification or the drawings clearly support the claimed negative limitation and thus, the claimed limitation is considered new matter as there is no support for “excludes a polymer”.
Claim 2-21 also rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ophir et al. (US 2018/0166680) in view of Katayama et al. (US 2009/0067119) and Sugita et al. (US 2016/0020467).
Regarding Claim 1, Ophir et al. teaches a fast charging lithium ion battery (Para. [0018]) (i.e. a lithium secondary battery) comprising a cathode (i.e. positive electrode) (Para. [0019]) wherein the cathode is made by coating a slurry comprising electrode active material on a current collector (Para. [0047]) (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer comprising a positive electrode active material) wherein the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (i.e. comprising at least one composite oxide, the composite oxide comprising lithium and a metal selected from cobalt, manganese, nickel or a combination thereof) and comprising an olivine-based structure of LiFePO4 (i.e. a compound of Chemical formula 1 of the instant claim wherein a1 = 1, x1 = 0) (Para. [0022]) wherein 5-10 wt% of the cathode material comprises the olivine-based structure (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a mixing ratio of the positive electrode active material and the compound of Chemical Formula 1 is 95:5 to 90:10, and thus, overlapping with the claimed weight ratio of 9:1 to 5:5), the cell of the lithium battery further comprising an anode (i.e. negative electrode) comprising anode active material particles (i.e. comprising a negative electrode active material) , and a separator comprising a polyolefin (Para. [0047]) (i.e. a first functional layer between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, wherein the first functional layer comprises polyolefin particles).
Ophir et al. does not teach the polyolefin particles are plate-like polyolefin particles having an average diameter of 1 to 8 micrometers, wherein a ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of the plate-like polyolefin particles is 1.1 to 4.5 and wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises a flame-retardant or the positive electrode has a stacked structure comprising the electrode active material layer and a second functional layer comprising a flame retardant.
However, Katayama et al. teaches a lithium secondary battery (Para. [0101]) comprising a positive electrode containing (i.e. comprising) a positive active material (i.e. positive electrode active material) (Para. [0102]), a first separator layer (Para. [0023]) (i.e. a first functional layer) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (Para. [0099]) , wherein the first separator layer includes flakes (Para. [0057]) (i.e. plate-like particles) such as filler (Para. [0045], [0088]) which may be polypropylene (Para. [0050], [0052]) (i.e. plate-like polyolefin particles) wherein the average particle diameter of the flakes is 0.1 micrometer or larger and 15 micrometers or smaller (Para. [0060]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of 1 micrometer to 8 micrometers), wherein an average ratio length in the long axis direction/length in the short axis direction of the flat plate surface of the particles is approximate to 1, such as not more than 3 (Para. [0058]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of the plate-like polyolefin particle is 1.1 to 4.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polyolefin particles of Ophir et al. and the positive electrode active material layer of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the flakes (i.e. plate-like polyolefin particles as claimed) in the positive electrode active material layer, as the flakes having such a structure would effectively prevent the occurrence of an internal short-circuit caused by lithium dendrite deposited on the electrode surface or a protrusion of an active material on the electrode surface (Para. [0061]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Ophir et al. does not teach wherein the positive electrode active material further comprises an organic flame-retardant or the positive electrode has a stacked structure comprising the electrode active material layer and a second functional layer comprising an organic flame retardant, and the organic flame-retardant excludes a polymer and comprises a phosphorus-based flame retardant, a halogen-based flame retardant, a nitrogen-based flame retardant or a combination thereof.
However, Sugita et al. teaches a secondary battery (Para. [0012]) comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) containing a reaction inhibitor (Para. [0014]) wherein the reaction inhibitor is a phosphate ester compound, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a second functional layer comprising an organic flame retardant, and the organic flame-retardant excludes a polymer and comprises a phosphorus-based flame retardant, a nitrogen-based flame retardant or a combination thereof).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer suppresses the reaction between the positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution and suppresses the deterioration of input-output characteristics (Para. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 2, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches a cathode (i.e. positive electrode) (Para. [0019]) wherein the cathode is made by coating a slurry comprising electrode active material on a current collector (Para. [0047]) (i.e. the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode active material layer and a positive electrode current collector).
Ophir et al. does not teach the positive electrode has a stacked structure comprising the positive electrode active material layer and the second functional layer.
However, Sugita et al. teaches a secondary battery (Para. [0012]) comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) containing a reaction inhibitor (Para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) having a stacked structure as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer suppresses the reaction between the positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution and suppresses the deterioration of input-output characteristics (Para. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 3, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) contains a positive electrode active material (Para. [0015]) wherein the positive electrode active material includes LiFePO4 (Para. [0018]) (i.e. the second functional layer further comprises the compound of Chemical Formula 1).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) having the compound of Chemical Formula 1 as taught by Sugita et al., as such a layer suppresses the reaction between the positive electrode and non-aqueous electrolytic solution and suppresses the deterioration of input-output characteristics (Para. [0023]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches cathode material may be LiCoO-2 (Para. [0022]) (i.e. the composite oxide is represented by LiaA1-bXbD2 -wherein a = 1, b = 0, A is Co and D is O).
Regarding Claim 6, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the lithium battery further comprising an anode (i.e. negative electrode) comprising anode active material particles (i.e. comprising a negative electrode active material layer) , and a separator comprising a polyolefin (Para. [0047]) (i.e. the first functional layer is present on the negative electrode active material layer).
Regarding Claim 7, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach the first functional layer is present on a separator.
However, Katayama et al. further teaches the first separator layer (i.e. first functional layer) being formed on a porous base (Para, [0016]) (i.e. the lithium battery further includes a separator, and the first functional layer is present on the separator).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lithium battery of Ophir et al. to incorporate the teaching of the porous base, as using an independent porous base improves handleability (Para. [0070]).
15. Regarding Claim 10, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the reaction inhibitor is a phosphate ester compound, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant). Since the instant claim is being interpreted as defining the phosphorus-based flame retardant without requiring the presence of the phosphorus-based flame retardant, the presence of melamine (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant) meets the limitations of claim 10. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 11, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the reaction inhibitor is a phosphate ester compound, melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant). Since the instant claim is being interpreted as defining the halogen-based flame retardant without requiring the presence of the halogen-based flame retardant, the presence of melamine (i.e. a nitrogen-based flame retardant) meets the limitations of claim 11. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 12, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches the reaction inhibitor is a melamine pyrophosphate, melamine sulfate, melamine cyanurate or melamine borate wherein the reaction inhibitor may be a flame retardant agent (Para. [0021]) (i.e. the nitrogen-based flame retardant melamine, melamine phosphate, melamine cyanurate). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 13, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Katayama et al. further teaches the average particle diameter of the flakes is 0.1 micrometer or larger and 15 micrometers or smaller (Para. [0060]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed range of 2 micrometer to 6 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Katayama et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 14, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Katayama et al. further teaches an average ratio length in the long axis direction/length in the short axis direction of the flat plate surface of the particles is approximate to 1, such as not more than 3 (Para. [0058]) (i.e. overlapping with the claimed ratio of a major axis length to a minor axis length of the plate-like polyolefin particle is 1.2 to 3.5). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Katayama et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 15, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Katayama et al. further teaches the average particle diameter of the flakes is 0.1 micrometer or larger and 15 micrometers or smaller (Para. [0060]) and the aspect ratio of the flakes is preferably not less than 10 and not more than 50 (Para. [0080]) and thus, the thickness may range from 0.002 micrometer to 1.5 micrometers (as average diameter/thickness = aspect ratio of a flake and 0.1-15/thickness=10-50; overlapping with the claimed range of a thickness of the plate-like polyolefin particle is 0.2 micrometers to 4 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Katayama et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 18, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) between the second mixture layer and the current collector (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. the second functional layer is present between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 19, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) between the second mixture layer and the current collector (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. the second functional layer is present on the positive electrode active material layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 20, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Sugita et al. further teaches comprising a positive electrode having a stacked structure (Fig. 1, #10) comprising a second mixture layer (Fig. 1, #32) comprising positive electrode active material (i.e. a positive electrode active material layer) and a first mixture layer (Fig. 1, #22) (i.e. second functional layer) between the second mixture layer and the current collector (Fig. 1, #20) (i.e. the second functional layer is present between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector, and is present on the positive electrode active material layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Regarding Claim 21, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 3 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material includes LiFePO4 (i.e. the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the positive electrode active material layer).
Sugita et al. further teaches the first mixture layer (i.e. second functional layer) contains a positive electrode active material (Para. [0015]) wherein the positive electrode active material includes LiFePO4 (Para. [0018]) (i.e. is the compound represented by Chemical Formula 1 in the second functional layer). See the rejection to claim 1 for full details of the combination, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake; this reasoning is applicable to the specific example of Sugita et al. cited herein.
Claims 5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ophir et al. (US 2018/0166680) in view of Katayama et al. (US 2009/0067119) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al. (KR20180049986A). The U.S. version of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0075955A) is used as the English translation and is referenced below.
Regarding Claim 5, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Para. [0022]).
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material comprises at least one of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 or LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2.
However, Jeon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising both LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 (Para. [0095]).
The substitution of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxide] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a material functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 16, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al. and Sugita et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 1 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of at least one of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Para. [0022]) (i.e. two composite oxides).
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material comprises two composite oxides in a weight ratio of 80:20
However, Jeon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising both LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 (Para. [0095]).
The substitution of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxide] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a material functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Regarding Claim 17, Ophir et al. as modified by Katayama et al., Sugita et al. and Jeon et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention of claim 5 as explained above.
Ophir et al. further teaches the cathode material comprises spinel-based and/or layered structured cathode material of at least one of lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxides] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxides (Para. [0022]) (i.e. two composite oxides).
Ophir et al. does not explicitly teach a weight ratio of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 is 80:20
However, Jeon et al. teaches a positive electrode active material comprising both LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 (Para. [0095]).
The substitution of LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt [oxide] and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. would achieve the predictable result of providing a material functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to substitute LiNi0.6Co0.2Mn0.2O2 and LiNi0.6Co0.2Al0.2O2 in a weight ratio of 80:20 which function as the positive electrode (i.e. cathode) active material as taught by Jeon et al., for the lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide cathode [active] material of Ophir et al. as the substitution would achieve the predictable result of providing a lithium nickel-manganese-cobalt oxide and lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide functioning as the positive electrode active material in a lithium secondary battery (see Ophir – Para. [0018], [0022] & Jeon et al. – Para. [0095], [0107]). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection in light of the amendment. Applicant’s arguments are drawn to a previous prior art combination and thus, are not persuasive in light of the newly cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729